11/29/07 "ICH"
--- -- In a new low of despicable looniness, at the
Republican debate in St. Petersburg, John McCain equated those
Americans who want to stop militarily occupying Iraq with
Hitler-enablers. He actually said that, saying that it was
'isolationism' of a sort that allowed Hitler to come to power.

It gives a person a certain amount of faith in one's fellow
Americans that McCain was booed by the Republican crowd for this
piece of calumny. Comparisons to Hitler should be automatic
grounds for a candidate to be disqualified from being president.

But then McCain is the same person who joked about bombing Iran.
He thinks that killing all those children from the air would be
funny?

McCain also repeated his standard lie that Iraqis would attack
the United States if US troops were withdrawn from that country.
He contrasted the Vietnamese Communists, who, he said, just
wanted to build their workers' utopia in Vietnam once the US
left, with Iraqis, who he continues to confuse with Usamah Bin
Laden (a Saudi living far from Iraq who never had anything to do
with Iraq).

Of course, back in the early 1970s, if you had asked McCain, he
would have said we have to fight the Vietnamese because of the
Domino effect, and if we lost there then International Communism
would be in our living rooms. Now, he says the Vietnamese
Communists weren't expansionist at all, and just wanted
socialism in one country.

So then, John, if that was true and there was never any danger
of a domino effect, why did we sacrifice 58,000 US lives and
kill a million to two million Vietnamese peasants? You just
admitted we weren't in any danger from them, even if they
defeated us.

But since you were wrong about the domino effect with regard to
Vietnamese Communism (which I remember arguing in a class debate
as a teenager in 1967 was just a form of nationalism), how do we
know you aren't just as wrong or wronger about your fantastic
Muslim domino theory? After all, international communism was a
big important political movement to which many governments
adhered. Al-Qaeda is a few thousand scruffy guys afraid to come
out of their caves, who don't even have good sleeping bags much
less a government to their name.

McCain is so confused that he thinks Shiite Iran is supporting
"al-Qaeda." When I think that people who say these crazy things
serve in the US senate and are plausible as presidents of our
Republic, I despair a little. (When I see a nut job like
Tancredo on the podium, he of 'let's nuke Mecca,' I despair a
lot, but that is a different story.)

McCain also insisted that we never lost a battle in Vietnam. He
still doesn't understand guerrilla war. What battle did the
French lose in Algeria? You don't lose a guerrilla war because
you lose a conventional set piece battle. Then it would be a
conventional war and not a guerrilla one. You lose it because
you cannot control the country and it is too expensive in
treasure and life to go on staying there.

Ron Paul was only allowed to reply briefly to McCain's
outrageous and mean-spirited diatribe. Although the transcript
says he was applauded for saying that it was only natural that
the Iraqis would want us out of their hair, just as we wouldn't
want somebody invading and occupying us-- I heard a lot of
booing in response to that point.

At another point, Paul made the point that the quiet parts of
Iraq -- the Shiite deep south and the Kurdistan area in the
north-- are the places where there are no foreign troops to
speak of. Unfortunately, he forgot the name of the Kurds and
seemed to get confused, so I'm not sure he got the point across.

"McCain: . . .
I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him
now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and
about the war in Iraq and how it's failed.

(Applause)

And I want to
tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused
World War II. We allowed...

(Applause)

We allowed ...

(Audience
booing)

Cooper: Allow
him his answer. Allow him his answer, please.

McCain: We
allowed -- we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of
attitude of isolationism and appeasement.

(Audience
booing)

And I want to
tell you something, sir. I just finished having Thanksgiving
with the troops, and their message to you is -- the message of
these brave men and women who are serving over there is, "Let us
win. Let us...

(Applause)

Cooper: We
will -- please. We will get to Iraq...

(Applause)

All right. Let
me just remind everyone that these people did take a lot of time
to ask these questions, and so we do want direct questions to --
the answers. We will get to Iraq later, but I do have to allow
Congressman Paul 30 seconds to respond.

Paul:
Absolutely. The real question you have to ask is why do I get
the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?

(Applause)

What John is
saying is just totally distorted.

(Protester
shouts off-mike)

Paul: He
doesn't even understand the difference between non- intervention
and isolationism. I'm not an isolationism, (shakes head) em,
isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people,
travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to
tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they're
going to object to us over there.

"Paul: The
best commitment we can make to the Iraqi people is to give them
their country back. That's the most important thing that we can
do.

(Applause)

Already, part
of their country has been taken back. In the south, they claim
the surge has worked, but the surge really hasn't worked.
There's less violence, but al-Sadr has essentially won in the
south.

The British
are leaving. The brigade of Al Sadr now is in charge, so they
are getting their country back. They're in charge up north --
the Shia -- the people in the north are in charge, as well, and
there's no violence up there or nearly as much.

So, let the
people have their country back again. Just think of the cleaning
up of the mess after we left Vietnam. Vietnam now is a friend of
ours -- we trade with them, the president comes here.

What we
achieved in peace was unachievable in 20 years of the French and
the Americans being in Vietnam.

Comment GuidelinesBe succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy
and use this link to notify usif you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.

In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)